Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:59:00 AM (view original):

The court gets to make a decision, and if the people decide to make a law that voids it, the courts get to say.."We are right unless you can explain your reasoning? 

Yeah.  That's exactly right in this case.  Not all cases, but when the state passes a law that takes a right away from a group, it has to show a compelling reason to do so.

Theres the rub.

Who gets to decide if a state is taking the rights away from a group.

The people or the Federal Court?

Do we really think the founding fathers wanted judges to be above the people?

And remember this isnt some rogue state that we need to bring up to date.

Every single time the people have voted on this issue they have sided with traditional marriage.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/15/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:59:00 AM (view original):

The court gets to make a decision, and if the people decide to make a law that voids it, the courts get to say.."We are right unless you can explain your reasoning? 

Yeah.  That's exactly right in this case.  Not all cases, but when the state passes a law that takes a right away from a group, it has to show a compelling reason to do so.

Theres the rub.

Who gets to decide if a state is taking the rights away from a group.

The people or the Federal Court?

Do we really think the founding fathers wanted judges to be above the people?

Yes, they did.  Read the Federalist papers, the founders were very concerned that majority would cause problems and used the branches of the federal government to check that power.

Again this isnt a handful of states. I think it is 36-0 now.

Where does the line get drawn.

Is the Gay community really suffering over this?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/15/2012 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Again this isnt a handful of states. I think it is 36-0 now.

Where does the line get drawn.

Is the Gay community really suffering over this?

At one point almost every state outlawed interracial marriage.  It took rulings from judges to get most of those laws thrown out, at least until 1967 when the Supreme Court outlawed it everywhere.

Let's get back to basics.

What makes "same-sex marriage" the inalienable right that you seem to believe it is?

Thousands of years of human culture and social norms seem to argue against it, i.e. that marriage is a traditional bond between a man and a woman.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:35:00 AM (view original):
And then they didn't is why they ended up in court and saw the proposition overturned.  Because they needed a compelling legal reason to take it away.

Tell that to NC(and any other number of states).

I don't know what will happen in NC.  But in California the proposition was overturned for the exact reason I've laid out.  Without a compelling legal interest, the state wasn't able to take that right away.

Red state, blue state.   I've got a pretty good idea what will happen if the people of NC make it clear that they do not want SSM in their state.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:35:00 AM (view original):
And then they didn't is why they ended up in court and saw the proposition overturned.  Because they needed a compelling legal reason to take it away.

Tell that to NC(and any other number of states).

I don't know what will happen in NC.  But in California the proposition was overturned for the exact reason I've laid out.  Without a compelling legal interest, the state wasn't able to take that right away.

Red state, blue state.   I've got a pretty good idea what will happen if the people of NC make it clear that they do not want SSM in their state.

You may know what the people want but if what they want doesn't hold up in court, the law will be overturned.  Like it was in California.

Posted by tecwrg2 on 5/15/2012 1:04:00 PM (view original):
Let's get back to basics.

What makes "same-sex marriage" the inalienable right that you seem to believe it is?

Thousands of years of human culture and social norms seem to argue against it, i.e. that marriage is a traditional bond between a man and a woman.

Is marriage a right?

If a law was passed that said only Christians can legally marry would that be ok?

What if the law said only people of the same race can legally marry?

Responding to a question with three of your own questions is not an answer.

Please try to focus:  in your mind, why is "same-sex" marriage an inalienable right?

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:35:00 AM (view original):
And then they didn't is why they ended up in court and saw the proposition overturned.  Because they needed a compelling legal reason to take it away.

Tell that to NC(and any other number of states).

I don't know what will happen in NC.  But in California the proposition was overturned for the exact reason I've laid out.  Without a compelling legal interest, the state wasn't able to take that right away.

Red state, blue state.   I've got a pretty good idea what will happen if the people of NC make it clear that they do not want SSM in their state.

You may know what the people want but if what they want doesn't hold up in court, the law will be overturned.  Like it was in California.

And one of two things will happen:

1.  New law with different wording/same concept will surface
2.  It goes back to court

I've already covered these "rights" you think you have.  They're rights when the government says they're rights.

Stop screaming "I KNOW MY RIGHTS!!!!"   You're already loaded up and the cop car is pulling away.

I'm asking you if you think marriage is a right.  I've answered a ton of your questions so far.  I don't think you've answered many of mine.

     Is marriage a right?

     If a law was passed that said only Christians can legally marry would that be ok?

     What if the law said only people of the same race can legally marry?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 11:35:00 AM (view original):
And then they didn't is why they ended up in court and saw the proposition overturned.  Because they needed a compelling legal reason to take it away.

Tell that to NC(and any other number of states).

I don't know what will happen in NC.  But in California the proposition was overturned for the exact reason I've laid out.  Without a compelling legal interest, the state wasn't able to take that right away.

Red state, blue state.   I've got a pretty good idea what will happen if the people of NC make it clear that they do not want SSM in their state.

You may know what the people want but if what they want doesn't hold up in court, the law will be overturned.  Like it was in California.

And one of two things will happen:

1.  New law with different wording/same concept will surface
2.  It goes back to court

I don't know if it works that way or not.  I have no idea.  But I do think that every time a same sex marriage ban is defeated in court, we're all a little better off.  Less government telling private citizens what they can and can't do in their private lives.

Isn't this really about money and activism?

People were manipulating the law to reap financial gain/benefits. 
The state said "Whoa.  Wait a minute here" and made a new law.
The people manipulating the law got their panties bunched up.
The people with nothing better to do decided to protest.
And here we are. 

And, of course, CA is 15 billion in debt.   So maybe CA isn't the best example of how to run a state.